What is a "mute' point? Moot, I've heard.

The problem is deeper than the Oregon legislature, and they are doing something the federal Alsea Valley litigation under the ESA allows and it is not altogether illogical based on what has happened at the federal level.

The problem goes back to the language in the ESA that speaks of species and "distint population segments." Not an easy thing to determine when dealing with anadromous fish that split time in fresh and salt water and have a natural stray rate upon return to breeeding grounds of 10-15% to ensure genetic diversity. NMFS has program responsibility for anad. fish, and has the authority to determine what constitutes a "distinct population segment." NMFS created a concept of a evolutionarily significant unit (ESU), which a lot of people contested in journals, etc. They have not drawn a genetic distinction between hatchery fish and wild.

In a case of plaintiff dredging by property rights goups, a fishing guide filed suit in OR on 2000 or 2001 challenging NMFS' regs, allowing the harvest of hatchery fish but protecting wild fish under ESA "take" prohibitions. The plaintiff was represented by a group pro bono, and they have been trained to file suite before Judge Hogan in Eugene. That is where Hodel v. Spotted Owl and some other significant cases originated, and he has never ruled on the side of an environ group. Frankly, his decison in the Alsea Valley case makes sense in light of NMFS' shortcomings. NMFS and consequnetly the state allowed fishing for and harvest of hatchery fish but not wild fish. The question was: NMFS said that genetically the fish were the same, so how do you justify different treatment under the law if the only difference is in their conditioning (wild vs. hatchery)? The court ruled in the plaintiffs favor in Sept 2001. Unfortuantely, a lot was going on in the world, and the changes that many would like to see on "distinct population segements" and ESU's have not been forthcoming uder this administration.

The big picture is to either change the regs (and definitions therein) on a rational and scientifically defensible basis or eliminate the hatcheries and let all of the fish start reproducing in the wild. Another is to protect hatchery and wild fish equally with take prohibitions, which under current regs would prevent intentional catch and release.

I, like most of you, so not want all fish to be hatchery fish or to lose what we have in wild stocks, but there is some logic in what has happened at the federal level due to some decisions made by NMFS to walk the line. NMFS holds the key, and can straighten in out by ending its tradition of playing King Solomon and splitting the baby all of the time. But that takes political will power in the executive branch.

[This message has been edited by Rawthumb (edited 25 March 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Rawthumb (edited 25 March 2005).]